Posts

Report: Hillary Had Maid Illegally Handle Classified Information

News broke Sunday morning that Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton illegally tasked her maid, who lacked proper security clearance, with printing and handling classified information at Clinton’s residence in Washington, D.C.

According to various emails and FBI memos obtained by the New York Post, Marina Santos, was also given illegally access to a high security room in Clinton’s house that is known as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF.

The New York Post reports:

Clinton would first receive highly sensitive e-mails from top aides at the State Department and then request that they, in turn, forward the messages and any attached documents to Santos to print out for her at home.

The claim is backed up by several emails, including one from 2011 in which Clinton asked longtime aide Huma Abedin to “Pls ask Marina to print for me in am.” The Post does note that this email was sensitive but unclassified.

In a classified email from 2012, another one of Clinton’s aides told Clinton, “We can ask Marina to print this.” Another 2012 email read, “Marina is trying to print for you.” Santos would also grab documents for Clinton from the secure fax in the SCIF.

According to the Department of Defense, access to SCIF areas is limited to people with appropriate security clearances. As a former Air Force intelligence official told The Stream, “People without SCI clearances are not allowed in a SCIF without an escort by someone who has an SCI clearance and No Way are they allowed access to a fax.” In fact, all classified materials must be removed from view before the person enters. Clearly, such security procedures were not followed in this case.

The revelation brings even more evidence of what FBI Director James Comey referred to back in July as Clinton’s “extreme carelessness” of handling classified information, putting national security at risk. Some have expressed concern that the FBI has not subpoenaed Santos, a Filipino immigrant, or the iMac and printer she used — or even the printouts themselves.

The news came hours before FBI Director James Comey told Congress in another letter that despite reopening their investigation into Clinton’s emails last week, the Bureau has “not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.” The agency said that the 650,000 emails found on a senior Clinton aide’s husband’s computer were either unrelated to the prior investigation or had already been looked into.

Daily Mail reports that “Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump blasted the arrangement on Sunday morning, telling a Sioux City, Iowa crowd that Clinton was ‘completely jeopardizing the national security of the United States.’” (For more from the author of “Report: Hillary Had Maid Illegally Handle Classified Information” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

WIKILEAKS: Chelsea Clinton’s Multi-Million Dollar Wedding Paid for By… “Charitable” Clinton Foundation

Former President Bill Clinton’s top aide wrote in 2012 that Chelsea Clinton used Clinton Foundation resources “for her wedding and life for a decade” and a top Foundation donor was responsible for “killing” unfavorable press coverage – all as an internal Foundation audit uncovered numerous conflicts of interest and “quid pro quo benefits,” according to emails released Sunday by WikiLeaks.

Doug Band, founder of global strategies company Teneo and Bill Clinton’s personal assistant since the 1990s, wrote the Jan. 4, 2012, email to future Hillary Clinton presidential campaign chair John Podesta and two other Clinton aides after receiving word that Chelsea had told “one of the [President] bush 43 kids” and others about “an internal investigation of money within the foundation.” Band wrote such chatter was “not smart.”

“The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents….,” Band wrote. “I hope that you will speak to her and end this[.] Once we go down this road….”

The FBI reportedly is looking into The Clinton Foundation, although the extent and focus of the investigation is unclear. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, had previously said some of the “personal” emails she deleted from her secret, homebrew server – the subject of another FBI probe – were related to Chelsea’s wedding. (Read more from “WIKILEAKS: Chelsea Clinton’s Multi-Million Dollar Wedding Paid for By… “Charitable” Clinton Foundation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Media Knew Hillary’s Server Was Hacked Months Ago yet Remained Deafeningly Silent

Hillary’s server being hacked is old news. The story you’re not hearing about is the media’s willful blindness.

The next president of the United States could be an individual — Hillary Clinton — who allowed classified information to fall into the hands of not one, not two, but as many as five foreign intelligence agencies due to her negligence and illegal use of an unsecured private email server.

And the mainstream media’s malfeasance is helping her get elected commander in chief.

Fox News’ Bret Baier rocked the political world Wednesday with an explosive report, as he cited FBI sources indicating the following:

That the investigation into the Clinton Foundation for pay-to-play schemes was more in depth than anyone previously thought.

That an indictment is “likely.”

And, most shockingly, that the FBI believes with “99 percent” certainty that Hillary Clinton’s private server had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information was stolen from the former secretary of state.

Again, to recap: As secretary of state for the United States of America, the Democratic nominee allowed classified information to be placed on a private email server — built at her request — and then failed to make sure that server was secure. As a result, foreign intelligence agencies were able to steal information from that Secretary of State.

This virtually never came up during the Democratic primary; Clinton was never really pressed about her email server’s potential threat to national security. But the media cannot pretend they had no reason to suspect that the security of Clinton’s server was compromised.

Why?

Because Conservative Review’s Dan Bongino broke that story in January — definitively stating that Hillary Clinton’s server was hacked, and that Clinton’s team knew about it.

As Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, wrote (emphasis mine):

The growing divide between government rules that are good for the ruling-goose and government rules that are good for the citizen-gander is a source of friction for Americans tired of being dumped on by the DC ruling class. One of the most disturbing examples of this is the growing scandal surrounding Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system to share U.S. national security secrets, a potential crime which would have, unquestionably, sent me to prison had I done it as a Secret Service agent on assignment to protect her. And as I state in my book, and as was relayed to me by an unimpeachable source, Mrs. Clinton’s private server WAS HACKED, and Mrs. Clinton’s team knew about it. Combine this with recent revelations that Mrs. Clinton ordered subordinates to remove classified markings from emails before sending them to her over her private, non-government server, and more salt has been poured in this gaping wound.

As Bongino exlplained in the most recent episode of his “Renegade Republican” podcast, “I don’t do tinfoil-cap stuff. I found out from an … as I said in the piece … unimpeachable source who was there!”

Listen:

“I put this stuff out there … media people ignored the story,” Bongino said.

Why didn’t the mainstream media run with the story at any point dating back to January? Why didn’t they press candidate Clinton in the midst of the Democratic primary?

For two reasons. First, Dan Bongino is a conservative, a member of the alternative media liberals scoff at. Therefore, anything he says is null and void.

Secondly, because the liberal media is and always has been in the tank for Hillary Clinton. And everybody knows it. (For more from the author of “The Media Knew Hillary’s Server Was Hacked Months Ago yet Remained Deafeningly Silent” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Don’t Call Me Sexist Because I Won’t Vote for Hillary

Eight years ago, and again four years ago, conservative white Americans were told that the reason we did not vote for Barack Obama was because we were racist. Now, conservative American men are being told that the reason we are not voting for Hillary Clinton is because we are sexist.

As reported in the Huffington Post,

President Barack Obama on Tuesday called on men to “look inside” themselves and think about bias if they have any doubt about voting for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

“To the guys out there, I want to be honest,” Obama told a crowd in Columbus, Ohio, at a Clinton campaign event. “You know, there’s a reason we haven’t had a woman president before.”

He added,

I want every man out there who’s voting to kinda look inside yourself and ask yourself, if you’re having problems with this stuff, how much of it is that we’re just not used to it? When a guy is ambitious and out in the public arena and working hard, well that’s okay. But when a woman suddenly does it, suddenly you’re all like, well, why’s she doing that?

Liberal film director Michael Moore was even more direct, stating, “It’s the muscle memory of 10,000 years that’s in our DNA where we’ve run the show forever. Next Tuesday possibly — hopefully — a woman is going to lead the most powerful country on Earth. In other words, the 10,000-year reign is over.”

Well, I’m sure there are some voters out there, both male and female, who don’t want a woman running our country, just as I’m sure there were some voters out there in the last two elections who didn’t want a black man running our country. But, speaking without shame or apology as a white American male, my issue is with Hillary Clinton’s policies and character, not her gender, just as my issues were with Barack Obama’s policies, not his skin color.

The truth be told, I wanted to be able to vote for our nation’s first black president but I could not.

And I would gladly vote for our nation’s first female president — hopefully, a modern-day version of a woman like Deborah who led the ancient nation of Israel, or another Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher — if I could stand behind her policies and had confidence she could lead. At this very moment, had Carly Fiorina or Nikki Haley or Joni Ernst or any other solid conservative woman been running for president against a male liberal Democrat, I would vote for any of those women in a heartbeat, just as I would vote for Ben Carson or Tim Scott if either of these black leaders were running against a white liberal Democrat.

Again, that doesn’t mean that some people did not vote for Obama because he was black or that some people won’t vote for Hillary because she’s a woman. I don’t deny that for a moment.

But at the same time, there are some people who will not vote for Donald Trump because he’s a male and/or because he’s white. Yet it would be utterly ridiculous to state, “The reason a lot of you won’t vote for Trump is because he’s a white male.” That would be a gross exaggeration, totally overlooking Trump’s myriad flaws and shortcomings.

In the same way, it would be a gross exaggeration to say that the main reason a lot of people won’t vote for Hillary is because she’s a female, just as it would be a gross exaggeration to say that skin color was the main reason lots of Americans didn’t vote for Obama.

Over the last 8 years, I have heard from numerous African American callers who did not vote for Obama, and their reasons were identical to mine. And in recent months, I have heard from numerous female callers who will not vote for Hillary, and again, there reasons are identical to mine.

In fact, of all the people with whom I have discussed the elections in the last eight years, in public and in private, I have not met a single individual who voted against Obama because of his skin color or is voting against Hillary because of her gender. Not one.

Yet I have met many — and that is a very large “many” — who deplore their policies and therefore would not vote for them.

Why, then, cloud the issues with charges of racism and sexism? Or is that yet another ploy straight out of the liberal Democrat playbook? Why can’t the issues be the issues?

When I started my live, daily talk radio show a little over eight years ago, it was right during the presidential primaries, and I remember making my first on-the-air political comment, which was critical of something Senator McCain had said.

A day or two later, I took issue with Senator Obama, and then did so again a few days after that.

Immediately, I received a phone call from an African American listener who said to me, “Why do you always have to bring up race?” When I asked her what she meant, she replied, “All you do is bash Barack Obama.”

I explained to her that I had only differed with him on the air twice, but before that I had differed with John McCain. More importantly, I told her that I would gladly vote for Alan Keyes, a black leader who ran against Obama in Illinois, rather than Obama, because race was not the issue for me. I also said that I preferred Sarah Palin to Hillary Clinton, since my issue was not gender.

Thankfully, over the years, my listeners have learned that I am anything but racist or sexist, and today, when a black caller implied that I was racist for taking issue with President Obama, other black listeners quickly weighed in, saying I was anything but racist and that they too didn’t vote for Obama. One of the callers actually said that the woman who implied that I was racist was guilty of racism, rather than me.

So let us not be distracted from what really matters, since the bottom line is simple: Racism and sexism certainly exist in America, from every perspective and among every people group, but racism and sexism are not the issue in this election. The issues are the issues, so let’s concentrate on them.

And if you tell me that I’m blinded my superior status as a white American male, I’ll encourage you to search your own heart. Perhaps the racism and sexism are on your end, not mine. (For more from the author of “Don’t Call Me Sexist Because I Won’t Vote for Hillary” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Did Wikileaks Just Uncover Hillary’s Mole Within the DOJ?

Today’s 25th installment of the WikiLeaks emails contained a blockbuster. The assistant attorney general for congressional relations, Peter Kadzik, used his Gmail account to inform John Podesta of next steps in the DOJ Clinton email investigation. Kadzik is now reportedly heading up the “review” of documents and emails seized from Anthony Weiner’s computer.

Here’s what the May 19, 2015 email from Kadzik said:

There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the emails.

kadzik-email

There you have it. An assistant attorney general gave the campaign chair of a presidential candidate under investigation by the FBI a heads up on next steps related to that investigation.

On top of that, Kadzik is the one who sent a letter to Democratic congressmen saying that the Department of Justice was adding additional resources to the Weiner computer investigation.

Who is Kadzik? We have learned in WikiLeaks emails that he is a very good friend of Clinton campaign chair Podesta. Here’s how the Daily Caller reported their relationship last month.

The day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, the Democrat’s campaign chairman, met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, a top official at the Justice Department.

The dinner arrangement, revealed in hacked Podesta emails released by WikiLeaks, is just the latest example of an apparent conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency charged with investigating the former secretary of state’s email practices.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Kadzik has previously donated to several Clinton initiatives, including Hillary’s 2008 campaign.

Up until now, Wikileaks emails between Podesta and Kadzik only showed a friendship. And the fact that Podesta claims Kadzik, “kept me out of jail.” Today’s dump by Wikileaks shows that Kadzik was, in fact, providing the Clinton inner circle with information regarding the email investigation.

Not only was Kadzik providing this information, but he did it through his personal, not governmental email address —likely to hide it from the National Archives.

Kadzik should immediately be taken out of his role in this investigation. The American people deserve an impartial Department of Justice. (For more from the author of “Did Wikileaks Just Uncover Hillary’s Mole Within the DOJ?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s Why Chelsea Clinton May Be a Huge Problem If Hillary Becomes President

In late August, with Election Day still over two months away, former President Bill Clinton wrote in a blog post that “[w]hile it would be presumptive to assume a victory in November, now that Hillary is her party’s nominee, it would be irresponsible not to plan for it.” He was announcing that changes would take place at the Clinton Foundation should his wife Hillary win the presidency.

Some of the planned changes to the foundation included:

A name change from the official Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation title to the Clinton Foundation;

A policy change to accepting “contributions only from U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and U.S.-based independent foundations”;

Bill stepping down from the foundation’s board and his ceasing of fundraising activities.

So far, these changes sound much better than the sheer veil they draped over the Clinton Foundation when Hillary became secretary of state. During that time, the Clinton Foundation continued to receive money from foreign governments, and Hillary’s chief aide, Huma Abedin, simultaneously worked for both the State Department and Clinton Foundation — a glaring conflict of interest.

Even The Washington Post admits that “[r]arely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments.”

So while the potential changes to Bill’s role at the Clinton Foundation might sound good on paper (no more donations from foreign governments!), here’s the unsaid: Chelsea Clinton will remain on the global foundation’s board.

Here’s why this is a problem: Chelsea is very, very close to her parents (if you need proof, check out her leaked emails), and as The Wall Street Journal previously reported, “the foundation and Ms. Clinton don’t intend to say whether she would raise money for the foundation until after the election.”

According to the Congressional Research Service, while executive branch employees are “subject to criminal penalties if they personally and substantially participate in matters in which they (or their immediate families, business partners or associated organizations) hold financial interests[,]” this does not include the president and the vice president.

In fact, “there is no current legal requirement that would compel the President to relinquish financial interest because of a conflict of interest.”

How can someone never consider past financial donations — in the millions of dollars, no less — from countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar to a family-run foundation when making foreign policy decisions? How can someone be totally divorced from her namesake organization when her only child is on the board and fundraising for it?

Finally, how can someone ever be truly divorced from an organization that will surely expand and continue to take money from foreign governments once out of office?

You can’t. That is why the existence of the Clinton Foundation was always problematic (especially during Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state), and will remain problematic should the Democratic nominee become president.

So what can be done about it? Honestly, not much. The Congressional Research Service determines that putting more restrictions on a president other than requiring campaign finance disclosures and disclosures of “personal assets, investments, interests, and income upon entering office,” to require any other disclosures “may require a constitutional amendment.”

Should we enter another Clinton presidency, that means the citizens and media will be especially responsible for holding Hillary Clinton accountable.

Conservative media, in particular, will have to rise to the challenge and be more robust, ethical, and meticulous than ever. (For more from the author of “Here’s Why Chelsea Clinton May Be a Huge Problem If Hillary Becomes President” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Black Leaders Warn of Clinton Threat to Religious Liberty in Blistering Letter

Black leaders slammed Hillary Clinton’s position toward the poor in a letter delivered to her campaign Monday, saying her economic ideas won’t help black communities in crisis and that her social views pose a threat to their religious liberty.

“Today in the United States more than ten million people of African descent face a crisis of catastrophic proportions,” the letter begins. “Life in our major post-industrial centers can be poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

More than 20 black leaders of the popular Pentecostal-Charismatic wing of the black church signed onto the letter, requesting a meeting with Clinton to discuss their concerns about her views on the economy, abortion and other issues. “We know that you will not make the political mistake of taking the 69,000 black churches in the US for granted,” they write.

First on economics, the signers outline their concern about Clinton’s motivations and policy ideas, all but accusing her of pandering for black votes. Federal programs have often “failed” the poor black communities they’re intended to help, they note. “It is not enough to make obligatory appearances at black churches, we need you to articulate a coherent policy for the black poor.”

The leaders then turn to the subject of abortion. “Abortion in the black community has had a catastrophic impact,” they write, saying they are “very concerned” about Clinton’s position on unborn children, particularly as it relates to religious liberty. (Read more from “Black Leaders Warn of Clinton Threat to Religious Liberty in Blistering Letter” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Ultimate Lame-Duck Move? How President Obama Could Actually Pardon Hillary Clinton

The American people have a right to know if President Barack Obama will pardon Hillary Clinton after Election Day, and before the next president is inaugurated.

On Friday, the Clinton campaign melted down when Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James B. Comey sent a very short letter to the chairmen of the relevant committees in Congress explaining a supplement to his testimony in which he’d said that the FBI had completed an investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal email server. Comey wrote: “In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” This letter has caused advocates of Hillary Clinton to attack the character of Comey.

News broke over the weekend that the Justice Department has obtained a warrant to review Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s newly discovered emails. Team Clinton has pulled out all the stops and is saturating the news with disparaging statements and implications about James Comey’s competence and motives. Former Attorney General Eric Holder even penned a piece this week in the Washington Post arguing that Comey has made a “serious mistake.”

The most fascinating debate, however, is whether President Barack Obama can wipe the slate clean by pardoning Hillary Clinton.

Law Newz published a piece on October 28, 2016, titled, “If Hillary Is Indicted, President Clinton Could Pardon Herself and Congress Might be Helpless.”

While Comey didn’t indicate how long the investigation could take, it’s pretty safe to bet investigators won’t come to any kind of decision before November 8th. It may even take months for the FBI to wrap up round two of this. So what happens if Clinton is elected, takes office, and then finds her self under indictment? It might not be likely, but it is worth exploring the legal possibilities.

It is Friday, January 20, 2017 and Hillary Clinton has just been sworn in as the 45th President of the United States after narrowly defeating Donald Trump in November. Republicans managed to hold both the House of Representatives and the Senate. A few weeks after winning the election, however, the Department of Justice handed down a multi-count indictment against Clinton over her handling of classified information and her involvement in an alleged pay for play scandal with the Clinton Foundation during her time as Secretary of State. It is a scenario that several of our commentators, and twitter followers have asked us to analyze.

Under Article II, Section Two, the president’s power to issue a pardon for a federal offense is nearly limitless. The Law NewZ site analyzed whether President Hillary Clinton has the power to pardon herself, but a more likely hypothetical is whether President Obama will pardon Clinton regardless of the result of the election.

The power of the president to pardon before a person has not even been charged with a crime has been established by the Supreme Court. This issue came up at the end of the presidency of George W. Bush when the question was raised as to whether Bush could pre-emptively pardon government employees involved in counter-terrorism programs who had not been charged.

As reported by Slate on July 21, 2008:

In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power “extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.” (In that case, a former Confederate senator successfully petitioned the court to uphold a pardon that prevented him from being disbarred.) Generally speaking, once an act has been committed, the president can issue a pardon at any time — regardless of whether charges have even been filed.

The power of President Obama to pre-emptively pardon Hillary Clinton has been established, and under the two likely election scenarios presented below there are reasons to believe that he will.

If Hillary wins the election, it would seem like something Obama might do because he has publicly stated that he didn’t think Hillary’s mishandling of classified information “posed a national security problem.” Remember that Obama reportedly used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, too. For those two reasons, it seems reasonable to believe that President Obama would issue a pardon to clean the slate and let Hillary take office without the possibility of this legal question clouding her tenure as president of the United States. It would be ethically wrong, but perfectly within the power of a president under the Constitution.

If Trump wins the election, it would also seem like something President Obama might do to protect an elongated prosecution of a former presidential candidate. Again, President Obama would not want this litigated under a Republican administration, therefore it seems like he has a strong motive to pardon under either circumstance.

A reporter needs to ask President Obama right now if he will take a pardon off the table. (For more from the author of “The Ultimate Lame-Duck Move? How President Obama Could Actually Pardon Hillary Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Clinton Emails: The Latest on the FBI’s Reopened Investigation

It was around midday last Friday when FBI Director James Comey unveiled the October surprise no one expected — a letter to Congress announcing that the FBI was reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server during her time as secretary of state. The FBI discovered more relevant emails — over 650,000 — during an investigation that was “unrelated.”

Later that afternoon, officials said the “unrelated” investigation was of Anthony Weiner — former congressman, estranged husband to longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and currently undergoing investigation for allegedly sexting a 15-year-old girl. They found the new emails on his laptop.

The bombshell ignited bipartisan backlash against Comey, whom Democrats formerly praised for recommending no criminal charges against Clinton in July. It also revealed rifts between the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), sparking speculation about Comey’s motivations and whether his letter would ultimately harm Clinton’s bid for the White House (a recent poll shows Trump and Clinton now virtually tied.)

Here’s the latest.

FBI Obtains Warrant to Search Newly Discovered Emails

The Wall Street Journal reported that the new emails were discovered weeks ago at the beginning of October while FBI investigators searched Weiner’s device for child pornography. Investigators couldn’t search the emails further without a warrant, since their current warrant only extended to materials relevant to the Weiner investigation. When it became clear that the emails were from Abedin’s accounts and sent to or from Clinton’s private server, investigators were given permission to dig deeper.

But last week, sources told the Journal, when officials asked for an update on the “Weiner laptop,” they “realized that no one had acted to obtain a warrant.” Investigators then allegedly confirmed that the emails could be relevant to the Clinton investigation and updated Comey, who sent the controversial letter to Congress on Friday.

Comey stated in the letter that investigators would be searching the new emails for classified information, though he did not know yet whether the emails contained anything “significant” (they could be duplicates of emails already reviewed by the FBI).

The FBI officially obtained a warrant to search the newly discovered emails late Sunday.

Comey Draws Criticism from Democrats and Some Republicans

From Clinton herself to GOP vice presidential pick Mike Pence, people across the aisle are calling on the FBI to release more information immediately.

On Sunday, a bipartisan group of nearly 100 Justice Department officials and former federal prosecutors wrote an open letter calling Comey’s judgment into question, stating that his announcement just 11 days before Election Day undermined the nonpartisanship that makes the U.S. justice system “exceptional throughout the world.”

The letter writers note that Comey’s decision — while not a breach of law — defies “prevailing Department policy.”

The letter ended with a call for more information:

[W]e believe the American people deserve all the facts, and fairness dictates releasing information that provides a full and complete picture regarding the material at issue.

Clinton’s Fault?

Since Friday, Abedin — who has worked closely with Clinton since she was 19 — and her estranged husband have come under scrutiny, with commentators wondering what role, if any, Abedin will have if Clinton is elected.

Others have noted that earlier this year, Abedin swore under oath that all her devices containing documents relevant to the FBI’s investigation of Clinton had been turned over — a claim that now seems questionable. Abedin now claims she does not know how her emails got on Weiner’s laptop.

While some have postulated how awkward it must be for Abedin to be involved in a political scandal so potentially detrimental to Clinton’s campaign given their longtime working relationship, others have asserted that the responsibility falls on none other than Clinton herself.

“The reason they’re in this fix is because Hillary Clinton inexplicably chose to have a private email server as secretary of state,” Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today, told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. She also said Bill Clinton’s private meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch earlier this year has proved problematic.

The Clintons and Lynch were criticized in June after Mr. Clinton and Lynch met on Lynch’s plane in Phoenix. Though Lynch claimed their conversation consisted of “grandchildren” and other “social” topics, it looked suspicious when the House Benghazi Committee’s report on the 2012 attack was released just days later. The FBI’s initial investigation into Clinton’s private email server was also ongoing at the time.

Lynch later admitted that the meeting had appeared questionable and recused herself from that investigation, saying that she would follow Comey’s recommendations regarding the outcome. Comey announced in early July that the FBI recommended the DOJ bring no criminal charges against Clinton.

Page said on Sunday that Mr. Clinton’s meeting with Lynch “made it impossible” for Lynch to stop Comey from going public with the reopening of the investigation, even though “we know from news reports that she was opposed.”

FBI vs. DOJ

Lynch wasn’t the only one who advised against Comey’s actions. According to sources cited by The Wall Street Journal, the DOJ and the FBI have long been at odds when it comes to investigating the Clintons.

Before Comey alerted Congress of the reopened investigation, senior DOJ officials warned that it would “violate policies against overt actions that could affect an election,” the Journal reported Sunday, adding that DOJ officials previously clashed with Comey over his public statements regarding the FBI’s Clinton investigation.

Sources also told the Journal that there was conflict between the DOJ and the FBI regarding how to investigate the Clinton Foundation.

Is Comey Getting Political?

Thought some of have accused Comey of playing politics, in a press conference on Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest claimed that President Barack Obama considers Comey to be a man of “integrity” and “doesn’t believe that he’s secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party.”

Why did Comey make the renewed investigation public? John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary Magazine hypothesizes that the alleged disagreements between the DOJ and the FBI could have contributed to Comey’s decision. Perhaps, Podhoretz speculates, Comey wanted to cover all his bases lest he be “accused of complicity in a cover-up by the Republicans in Congress,” should the newly-discovered emails prove truly incriminating for Clinton.

Whatever Comey’s intentions, and regardless of whether the new emails contain anything “significant,” the ramifications of Comey’s letter to Congress are proving significant. With only eight days to go until November 8, the reopened investigation of the Democratic presidential nominee is dominating election coverage. (For more from the author of “New Clinton Emails: The Latest on the FBI’s Reopened Investigation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

BREAKING, EXCLUSIVE: Intruder Spotted at Hillary Press Conference

So reports our summer intern Biff Spackle:

161030-weiner-at-hrc-fbi-press-conference2

Someone alert the Secret Service. (For more from the author of “BREAKING, EXCLUSIVE: Intruder Spotted at Hillary Press Conference” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.